RFK Jr.’s Autism Comments – OUTRAGE!

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s sweeping claims about autism reveal the urgent need to reconsider how we label and understand individuals across the autism spectrum.

At a Glance 

  • Health Secretary RFK Jr. sparked controversy by claiming autistic individuals “will never” hold jobs, pay taxes, or function independently
  • The current autism spectrum classification is criticized for being too broad, lumping together vastly different conditions
  • Many experts advocate returning to more specific terminology instead of the current level 1-3 system
  • Research shows that disclosing an autism diagnosis can actually increase peer acceptance and support
  • Functioning labels present a complex debate between clarity and potential limitations on individual abilities

Kennedy’s Controversial Remarks Ignite Debate

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. created a firestorm recently with his broad characterization of autistic individuals. Kennedy claimed autistic people “will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job, they’ll never play baseball, they’ll never write a poem, they’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.” His remarks immediately drew backlash from autism advocates, families, and autistic individuals themselves who cited countless examples that directly contradict these sweeping generalizations.

Kennedy’s comments highlight a fundamental issue with how autism is currently classified. Since 2013, when the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was released, the diagnosis of autism has become a spectrum disorder that encompasses what were previously separate conditions. This change eliminated distinct diagnoses like Asperger’s Syndrome, which many argue has created confusion rather than clarity. 

The Problem with Today’s Spectrum Approach

The current autism spectrum is divided into three severity levels, with level 1 requiring the least support and level 3 requiring substantial support. Critics argue this system is too simplistic and fails to capture the vast differences between individuals. What was once diagnosed as Asperger’s Syndrome is now classified as level 1 autism, while more severe manifestations fall under levels 2 and 3. This broad categorization can lead to misunderstandings and generalizations like those expressed by Secretary Kennedy.

Some experts propose returning to more specific terminology, similar to how medical professionals classify cancer into distinct types rather than referring to all cancers with a single term. This approach would acknowledge that the current spectrum encompasses conditions that manifest very differently. The removal of diagnoses like Asperger’s from the DSM-5 has been attributed in part to historical concerns about Hans Asperger’s connections to Nazi Germany, rather than purely clinical considerations.

The Functioning Label Debate

The controversy extends to the use of “functioning labels” such as high-functioning or low-functioning to describe autistic individuals. These terms attempt to convey someone’s verbal abilities, self-care capabilities, and need for support. Critics argue these labels can be harmful, as they may overlook the challenges faced by those labeled “high-functioning” while potentially underestimating the abilities of those deemed “low-functioning.” 

One parent, who identifies as a level 1 autistic adult, defends functioning labels as necessary to differentiate their experience from that of their nonverbal child who requires 24/7 care. This parent points out that functioning can vary significantly across different situations and environments. An individual who appears “high-functioning” in one context may struggle immensely in another, while their ability to mask or “pass” as neurotypical fluctuates depending on stress levels and sensory input. 

Research Shows Benefits of Appropriate Labeling

A recent study involving 121 university students examined how different labels affect openness toward autistic peers. Participants who read vignettes about characters identified as having Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Special Needs showed greater acceptance than toward those with no label at all. This suggests that appropriate disclosure of an autism diagnosis can actually create a more supportive environment rather than increasing stigma. 

This research has particular relevance for autistic university students, who often face significant social and academic challenges affecting their degree completion rates. Knowledge about autism accounted for a small but significant improvement in acceptance ratings, highlighting the importance of public education about the condition. While labeling theory suggests public labels can increase stigma, this study indicates disclosure may decrease stigma by providing explanations for behaviors that might otherwise be misinterpreted. 

Moving Forward with Clarity and Respect

The controversy surrounding Secretary Kennedy’s comments presents an opportunity to reconsider how we talk about autism. Clear terminology that acknowledges the diversity within the autism spectrum is essential for proper support, education, and public understanding. Returning to more precise diagnostic language might help prevent the kind of over-generalizations that can harm autistic individuals by limiting expectations or opportunities. 

What remains clear is that each autistic person is an individual with unique strengths, challenges, and potential. By focusing on individual needs rather than broad labels, families, educators, and policymakers can develop more effective supports that honor the humanity and capability of each person. This individualized approach, rather than reliance on sweeping generalizations, offers the best path toward meaningful inclusion and opportunity for all people on the autism spectrum.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR